The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication

Brian H. Spitzberg, William R. Cupach, Brian H. Spitzberg, William R. Cupach

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135597672
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Kommunikationswissenschaften

The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication examines the multifunctional ways in which seemingly productive communication can be destructive—and vice versa—and explores the many ways in which dysfunctional interpersonal communication operates across a variety of personal relationship contexts. This second edition of Brian Spitzberg and William Cupach's classic volume presents new chapters and topics, along with updates of several chapters in the earlier edition, all in the context of surveying the scholarly landscape for new and important avenues of investigation. Offering much new content, this volume features internationally renowned scholars addressing such compelling topics as uncertainty and secrecy in relationships; the role of negotiating self in cyberspace; criticism and complaints; teasing and bullying; infidelity and relational transgressions; revenge; and adolescent physical aggression toward parents. The chapters are organized thematically and offer a range of perspectives from both junior scholars and seasoned academics. By posing questions at the micro and macro levels, The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication draws closer to a perspective in which the darker sides and brighter sides of human experience are better integrated in theory and research. Appropriate for scholars, practitioners, and students in communication, social psychology, sociology, counseling, conflict, personal relationships, and related areas, this book is also useful as a text in graduate courses on interpersonal communication, ethics, and other special topics.

V
ABUSING

10
The Communication of Revenge: On the Viciousness, Virtues, and Vitality of Vengeful Behavior in Interpersonal Relationships

Stephen Yoshimura
The University of Montana

Few interpersonal activities are as important as those that help connect us to larger social structures. Such acts may be large or small, but they play an important role in providing meaning and significance to our collective lives. These activities unite us and remind us that social and personal relationships are an essential component of human existence. Although these messages sometimes seem benevolent, they can also seem malicious. In the most interesting of cases, they are arguably both.

Revenge is one such activity. Humans have relied on revenge to assist social interaction at institutional, group, and interpersonal levels throughout much of human history. Regardless of the variety of terms in the English language used to describe it, revenge helps offended individuals express disempowerment and feelings of unjust treatment. When received and understood, it provides offenders with an opportunity to repair their future standing in the eyes of others. In the end, revenge helps maintain social equilibrium in all relational contexts. In this chapter, I outline the variety of distinct characteristics of revenge and attempt to illuminate some reasons why revenge—despite its negative connotations and outcomes—is an inevitable and indispensable part of social interaction.

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF REVENGE

When people talk about vengeance, vindication, retaliation, retribution, and revenge, they often speak in metaphors. They might discuss, for example, the taking of revenge, getting vengeance, getting payback, getting even, or settling the score. Such metaphors are telling because they reflect how users make sense of the abstract concept of revenge. Assuming that they are more than just florid ways of describing concepts, the metaphors reflect a perception that revenge is a game of tangible and obtainable wins and losses. Although metaphors can be valid representations of knowledge, they reflect only a partial understanding of the concept because they are the product of our interpretations and are limited by our sense-making and awareness abilities (Pinker, 1997, 1999).

A variety of scholarly conceptualizations of revenge exist (e.g., Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004; Folger & Skarlicki, 2005; Sommers, Schell, & Vodanovich, 2002), but all are united by the presence of a perceived (real or imagined) experience of some wrongful offense. In one of the first empirical examinations of revenge, Stuckless and Goranson (1992) defined revenge as “the infliction of harm in return for a perceived wrong” (p.). Later, Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2001) and Bies and Tripp (2005) broadened the conceptualization to “an action in response to some perceived harm or wrongdoing by another party that is intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible” (Bies & Tripp, 2005, p.). In another investigation of vengefulness, McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, and Johnson (2001) contended that:

Vengefulness refers both to (a) beliefs and attitudes about the morality or desirability of vengeful actions for attaining certain goals (e.g., restoring the moral balance, teaching an offender a lesson, saving face), and (b) self-reported use of vengeance as an interpersonal problem-solving strategy. (p. 602)

The perception of wrong conceptually distinguishes revenge from general and various specific acts of aggression, which Berkowitz (1993) defined as “any form of behavior that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologically” (p.). Several other scholars have also used the perceived moral violation to distinguish revenge from aggressive acts in general (Frijda, 1994; Planalp, 1999; Solomon, 1994).

Like many phenomena considered part of the dark side of interpersonal communication, vengeance is dualistic in nature. On one hand, revenge behavior has a bright side; it serves as a response to a perceived social, personal, or moral violation, and it reflects individuals’ willingness to risk costs for the purpose of (re)enforcing moral order and social cooperation norms. On the other hand, such activity is easily abused for destructive purposes. In some cases, the bright side is invoked as a reason for indulging in harmful activity, such as when revenge is described in metaphorical terms (e.g., getting even) as an argument for accomplishing abusive goals. Perhaps the dualistic nature of revenge can help explain why societies have struggled with revenge throughout much of human history, and continue to struggle with it today.

THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PREVALENCE OF REVENGE

One of the earliest indicators of the use of revenge in human history can be found in Hammurabi’s Code (ca. 1800 BC). Engraved in a massive block of black diorite rock, this code of laws is the earliest known example of written rules and regulations set by a ruler (King Hammurabi) for a group of people (the Babylonians), and is most probably the source of the Hebrew law of similar things (lex talionis; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). Contrary to popular belief however, the code did not emerge to promote revenge. Rather, it was likely institutionalized as a way of limiting revenge and restricting the extent to which offenses could be punished (French, 2001). In that regard, the code is very telling about the power and importance of revenge throughout time. In particular, it suggests that revenge has been crucial to effective social functioning, yet has always been in need of restriction and regulation.

The ancient Greek societies must have shared some of this perspective, as they left evidence of intense interest in revenge, particularly in the context of interpersonal relationships. Revenge themes run through many Greek tragedies, usually as lessons about the importance of revenge in establishing justice. Probably the most outstanding of the Greek revenge narratives is Euripides’s Medea (431 BC). In it, Euripides tells the story of Medea, who was betrayed by her husband (Jason) after she heavily invested in her relationship with him (e.g., killing her own brother and otherwise helping Jason escape her father’s punishment for Jason’s theft of the Golden Fleece). After leaving her homeland for Jason, and then being deserted by him for another woman, Medea finds herself left with virtually no means of recourse for the variety of personal and social injustices she suffered in her relationship with Jason. To enact her revenge, Medea kills Jason’s new wife (the daughter of the king of Corinth) and the children she had with Jason. Jason eventually loses his social status and dies after being hit on the head with a timber from his prized boat, and Medea escapes future punishment via supernatural assistance (Warner, 1955). Jason’s demise and Medea’s escape suggest that Euripides believed that some acts of revenge are socially and personally justifiable under certain conditions— no matter how tragic the outcomes (French, 2001).

Ancient laws, philosophies, and struggles about revenge persist in many modern societies. In the United States, for example, retribution is a legal motive for the death penalty, despite repeated attempts to have it removed at the state and federal levels (Cotton, 2000). The results of a Gallup Poll taken in February 2001 revealed that 48% of death penalty supporters in the United States based their opinion on “an eye for an eye/they took a life/fits the crime.” Revenge also continues as a popular theme in many popular narratives. Classic American western films such as Unforgiven and Pale Rider, as well as The Godfather, Dirty Harry, and Kill Bill Volumes I and II are notable in part because revenge is a central component of the relationships among the characters. In addition, several Web sites and books are devoted to stories, fantasies, and methods of revenge. Hayduke, for example, has authored nearly 25 popular books on the art of revenge, the most famous of which are alphabetized indexes of different tools and techniques one would need to successfully enact revenge.

Despite the pervasive attention it receives in Western cultures, revenge is a universal phenomenon. Anthropologists have commonly observed and noted the importance of both positive and negative reciprocity across cultures (Brown, 1991). More specifically, scholars have observed and noted evidence of revenge values or activity in Chinese cultures (Chang & Holt, 1994), Arabic cultures in Israel (Al-Krenawi, Slonim-Nevo, Maymon, & Al-Krenawi, 2001), Japanese cultures (Fujihara, Kohyama, Andreu, & Ramirez, 1999), Chicano street gangs (Cintron, 2000; Lopez, 1991), rural Turkish communities (Icli, 1994), southern U.S. culture (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996), and in 57 of 60 randomly selected societies from the Human Relations Area Files (Daly & Wilson, 1988). In the words of Barreca (1995), this is to say that revenge might very well be “as human and as inevitable as hunger” (p.).

WHY REVENGE OCCURS

Research has addressed a wide variety of potential explanations for why individuals decide to engage in revenge, organized here in terms of ultimate and proximate explanations. Ultimate and proximate explanations work together to provide a complete understanding of human phenomena. They differ, however, in that ultimate-level explanations help us understand revenge in terms of large, durable structures such as human evolution, sociocultural norms, and moral or legal boundaries, whereas proximate explanations provide accounts in terms of more immediate influences such as the relational context, one’s mood, cognitive goals, attributions, and physiology (Alcock, 1993; Kenrick & Trost, 1997). Proximate mechanisms are valuable to our understanding of many human phenomena, but ultimate mechanisms also help explain why proximate mechanisms exist.

Ultimate Mechanisms

Evolution. One of the highest order explanations for revenge is that it evolved as a specific psychological mechanism to help humans cope with various conditions of social life throughout human history. Scholars have provided good ...